Early reports indicate the high court appears likely to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act when it rules in June. Most of the justices were skeptical of the 1996 law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purposes of administering more than 1,000 federal programs and laws.

“The question is whether or not the federal government under a federalism system has the authority to regulate marriage,” swing vote Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said during oral arguments Wednesday.

The thinking is the definition of marriage should be left up to the states. So, for example, all married couples, gay or straight, would be treated equally under federal law in states that allow same-sex marriage.

With this, at least, Zoeller appears to be on the same page as a majority of the Supreme Court. His rationale in writing the briefs was simply this: Defending Indiana’s law and the right of states to make their own decisions about whether to allow same-sex couples to marry.

“People always think it’s a personal advocacy when, in fact, I’m arguing our current state statute,” Zoeller said in January. “If they tell us that we can’t limit the licensing of marriage, now we know.”

Well, that and as he wrote in one brief about a lower court’s decision to strike down California’s ban, gay marriage is a “disintegration of perhaps the most fundamental and revered cultural institution of American life: marriage as we know it.”

(Page 2 of 3)

But let’s put that statement on the back burner for a second.

Speculation aside, it will be months before we know how the Supreme Court will actually rule on the California ban, also known as Proposition 8, and on the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. Whatever happens, Hoosiers stand to lose. The only question is whether it’s going to be immediately or years down the road.

Here’s why:

Let’s say the high court goes against Zoeller and the 20 other attorneys general who agree with him. Say the justices decide to declare that gay marriage is legal across the land, striking down California’s ban, and they indeed rule that DOMA is unconstitutional.

Then Indiana will be known as the state that led the charge of intolerance. Particularly with DOMA, that we actually mounted a campaign to defend our right to be intolerant. Gay marriage is already illegal in Indiana. But gosh, darn it! Hoosiers want the feds to get out of the way so we can define marriage -- or any union like it -- as between one man and one woman, and put it in the state’s constitution.

Do we really want to go out of our way to prove some people’s assumptions that we’re a backwards state? Do we really want to enable a brain drain, giving young people a reason to run away to find a job in a more welcoming state?

Let’s say the pundits are right and the high court is wary of making gay marriage legal in all 50 states. Let’s say the justices instead choose to dismiss the California case entirely and, in doing so, neither uphold nor strike down the state’s ban. If that happens, a lower court’s ruling allowing gay marriage in California would stand, but bans — or potential bans — in other states would remain intact.

Or let’s say the court is more decisive and chooses to uphold California’s ban, paving the way for other states, including Indiana, to legally enact bans of their own.

That would be a victory for Zoeller, right? Hoosiers would be vindicated.

Wrong.

That’s because attitudes toward gay marriage are changing nationwide, especially among young people. Even in Indiana. Any study that’s been published in the past six months will show that. Even Charles J. Cooper, the attorney who was arguing before the court for gay marriage opponents, admitted as much Tuesday.

(Page 3 of 3)

Same-sex marriage is coming sooner or later. If the Supreme Court is too chicken to make way for it now, then voters in states will do it in the coming years, inch by inch.

The questions Hoosiers need to ask is how long will we resist this inevitable trend, and how much will we harm and embarrass ourselves by doing so?

Because while many Hoosiers might applaud Zoeller for declaring gay marriage a “disintegration of perhaps the most fundamental and revered cultural institution in American life” in 2013, in a few short years, his words will be seen as little more than hate speech. Similar to the way statements about the supposed dangers of interracial marriage are seen today.

Zoeller took an unnecessary gamble with the state’s reputation. Too bad we’re all going to lose.